GHS Synthetic Turf Safe? Environmental Tests Say Yes
Posted by Shore Publishing on Mar 26 2009, 12:56 PM
Filed under: guilford high school, toxins, synthetic turf
By Pam Johnson, Courier Senior Staff Writer:
Anyone with concerns of environmental toxins leaching from Guilford High School’s synthetic turf may now have their fears allayed, as independent testing has validated the environmental safety of Kavanaugh Field.
The Cheshire firm of Milone & MacBroom ran extensive tests for water and air quality and measured for excessive heat at the field, said Guilford Parks and Recreation Director Rick Maynard. The firm asked to do the tests at a time when some concerns were being fielded about toxins leaching from synthetic materials, particularly from impact-absorbing granules known “crumb rubber.”
“If there were concerns, we’d all want to know about it. We’re thankful for [the study’s] result—it’s certainly not a bad thing for people to know for sure, and this is a good thing,” said Maynard.
Maynard pointed out the town’s field, manufactured by FieldTurf Tarkett Co., was selected due to the company’s excellent reputation and environmental safety record.
“We felt they were the best in the market and that’s why we went with them,” said Maynard.
Guilford was contacted last year by Milone & MacBroom, a civil engineering, landscape architecture, and environmental science surveying firm. The firm sought to answer questions asked by various town commissions, said its environmental scientist, Scott Bristol.
“We design parks and playing fields. The bulk of our playing field experience is with natural turf. Since we also do design synthetic turf fields for schools and towns, we’re often in front of planning and zoning and inland wetlands agencies for approval. They start asking questions, as they should, and when it got around to some of the fields—in particular, synthetic turf fields—they were asking questions we didn’t have answers to. We set out to collect some information.”
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World dvd Guilford and two other Connecticut towns (not in this area) were asked to participate, said Bristol. The Guilford testing ran through August 2008. Milone & MacBroom based its results against laboratory tests from a 2007 Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station study.
“In general the state’s study is very similar to the work that we did,” said Bristol, noting the exception that Milone & MacBroom conducted testing in the field.
Among its tests, the state lab determined a toxin, benzothiazole, could be released from rubber when heated.
“If that happens in a lab, then it happens in the field, assuming their data was accurate,” said Bristol.
But concentrations found under lab conditions proved far different from a “real world situation,” he said.
“They took a few grains of rubber, put it in a vial and measured what was concentrated in the air above. When a container is sealed and heated, it represents the worst-case scenario,” Bristol said, adding “No one plays in a test tube.”
The lab test concluded there would be a “relatively high” concentration of benzothiazole in air above the fields on hot days. But tests done by Milone & MacBroom on hot July and August days proved otherwise.
“On the field, with wind, temperature, moisture, and other variables; we found differently. The [state lab] found benzothiazole at a relatively high concentration, [approximately] 225 micrograms per cubic meter. In Guilford, there were extremely low levels in air taken above the field—approximately .39 micrograms per cubic meter,” said Bristol.
Bristol noted that the Department of Public Health hasn’t established a formal threshold for benzothiazole exposure, though informally it’s developed one, “many, many times higher” than the Guilford results.
Another toxin released into the air by heated rubber, tertoctyl phenol, was “not detected at all,” at the field, said Bristol. He said the findings were consistent with the state lab test, which found tertoctyl concentrations “something like 100 times less than benzothiazole. We found little to none—in fact, none.”
The firm tested an air column rising to four feet above the playing surfaces and also air upwind and downwind.
“We set up five sample locations, four around the field plus one directly on the field, in the event a breeze was carrying anything off the field or if a breeze was carrying anything onto the field,” said Bristol.
The firm also came out in the rain to test water run-off from the field, spreading tests out at fields “over the course of about one year,” said Bristol.
In Guilford, “we collected water from drainage pipes leading from the field prior to mixing with any other source of water,” said Bristol. “We knew what the pipes were constructed of [PVC], to eliminate any metal contamination from pipes. Basically, we collected water and compared to standards set by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).”
Elvira, Mistress of the Dark move
The study tested for zinc and lead levels and how the run-off water affected a test species. According to Milone & MacBroom’s report, “results of the study indicate that the actual storm water drainage from the fields allows for the complete survival of the test species known as Daphnia pulex. An analysis of the concentration of metals in actual drainage water indicates metals do not leach in amounts that would be considered a risk to aquatic life, as compared to existing water quality standards.”
The report also noted laboratory-based tests for metal, using EPA methods, indicated “metals will leach from crumb rubber; but in concentrations that are within ranges that could be expected to leach from native soil.”
When asked why tests didn’t include risks from accidental ingestion of crumb rubber (sprays of which sometimes kick up during play), Bristol said an incredibly large amount of crumb rubber would need to be ingested to create a health issue.
“I don’t think anyone considers it an issue. The thresholds for what’s called direct exposure that are set up by the state assume daily exposure for 30 years.”
The final test conducted in Guilford gauged the level of heat the field could reach.
“We’d heard from a variety of sources the rubber on these fields reaches as much as 160 degrees,” said Bristol, adding the field certainly heated up, but, “we were surprised to find how cool the rubber could stay. The reason is that, when you look at the field, you don’t see black rubber, you see green. The rubber’s down about an inch or so. There’s is a lot of shading effect that happens.”
Like aluminum foil instantly cooling after it’s pulled from a hot oven, the synthetic grass blades dissipate heat quickly, said Bristol, because of a lack of mass to store heat.
Just as with other outdoor synthetic playing surfaces (such as tennis or basketball courts), the synthetic field will heat up. The highest testing temperature found crumb rubber reaching 112 degrees on a 100-degree day at another Connecticut field, Bristol noted, adding, “any chemical reaction tends to increase with increasing heat.”
Maynard said the field is not used on exceedingly hot days.
“It definitely does get hot. It also answered the question about can kids get burned—the grass doesn’t hold the heat very long, so they won’t get burned on it. But the bottom line is we don’t schedule things there in July at noon,” said Maynard.
Maynard hopes this testing will help put to rest any questions about the safety of Guilford’s synthetic field. Maynard said there soon may be more test results for residents. This week, representatives from the Connecticut DEP are visiting Kavanaugh Field to determine if it will be included in round of DEP tests.
“The DEP now [has] funding to study synthetic fields, and they want to do 10 fields all over the state. They requested permission to do ours. They’re coming to look at and if they want to test it again, we’d welcome it,” said Maynard.
As for the safety of synthetic fields such as Guilford’s, Bristol said, “we’re not necessarily recommending everyone install a synthetic turf field…we’re telling people that if you’re worried about a synthetic turf field, don’t let the environmental issues influence your decision-making process, because there doesn’t appear to be any issues. Make your decision on your usage and what you want for your teams.”
